My motives are as a hunter because it's who I am, people do alot of things they'd normally never do to make a buck! I'm afraid you'd really see alot of problems with this because money motivations can lead to alot of corruption.

If somebody is starving they can kill a deer and eat it, if this happened they could kill 30 deer, make a bunch of money, and go to the grocery store. I sure hope we never subject the majestic whitetail to this kind of expoitation!

...hunters use venison as a means of bartering all the time, on par with selling it.

Venison is exchanged for land access (giving a land owner meat for the privilege of hunting the land), help with butchering, to pay back for something or for a million other scenarios. Money is just an expression of time and labor used for bartering. So is venison. You put your time and labor into obtaining the venison, now you can use it to barter for anything. Except straight money.

You are right on all counts, Ben, but with all due respect these scenarios miss the point. Under the scenarios you have outlined ALL hunters are entitled to use venison in this way, not specially selected "Elite/Master Hunters." Suppose I'm one of the elite, and I make an agreement with a farmer to control the deer that are eating his corn and beans. Suppose also that part of that agreement is for exclusive in-season hunting privileges. Essentially, that gives me an enormous advantage over you, the regular guy. Not only am I taking deer that you might otherwise hunt, I'm also locking up land to make the remainder of the deer off-limits to you.

Anyone here like that idea? (................pause.................) I didn't think so.

ORIGINAL: Ben Sobieck

If this doesn't sit well with you, there are plenty of people already profiting from the harvest of game. Outdoors retailers, butchers, grocery stores (you've got to buy ingredients for that venison stew), outdoors manufacturers and so on. Everyone is profiting except the hunter, who winds up producing venison for the aforementioned entities for free.

Two points I would answer to that:
(1.) Suppose you take a beautiful photo of an autumn hillside and sell that photo to a magazine that promotes tourism in your area. The hillside is not your land, but you are making a profit on it. The magazine you sell it to makes a profit on the magazine sales. The advertisers in the magazine make a profit on the tourism it promotes. Everyone is profiting except the guy who owns the hillside.
(2.) You say, "Everyone is profiting except the hunter...." I don't think that's true for at least two reasons. First, the hunter is getting a profit in the enjoyment of hunting and taking the game. He may also, if he enjoys eating venison, profit by the fact that the venison offsets his grocery bill. Second, are any hunters complaining that they're legally prohibited from making money on the meat that they harvest? I haven't heard any.

Plenty of people are shouting out against the emphasis on big antlers as a mercenary venture, and if hunters are allowed to make meat a merchantable commodity, you'll hear those screams get much louder. It might be true that some (not "everyone") are making a profit in the industry, but hunters in general aren't asking to make a profit. Those who want to make money are finding endless ways to become entrepreneurs in the current system by inventing calls, treestands, scents, clothing... selling photography, conducting seminars... people are finding lots of ways to do it.

Historically, sportsmen have been the saviors of game populations because they advocated for the elimination of market hunting.
[ul][*]Not only have those game animal populations thrived because of sport hunting, but so have almost all other animals.
[*]Not only has sport hunting supported state and federal legislation that fosters healthy wildlife populations, it has also driven the development of conservation organizations that bring millions of dollars annually to the benefit of wildlife.
[*]Not only has the sport hunting created countless opportunities for the common man (the "everyday hunter") to enjoy a wholesome pastime, it has created a thriving industry that anyone can participate in. To say that only a few are making a profit from it is to twist the facts.
[/ul]Would sportsmen want to turn their backs on all that? I don't think so. I think a return to market hunting would kill sport hunting. The whole idea is being painted as a "win-win," but it will end up being a "lose-lose" because it will be a new way for government to sell a new kind of license. If the idea gains steam, that will be the reason. It will open up a whole new field to the idea, "If it moves, tax it." From there, the next step will be: "If it keeps moving, regulate it." Wildlife will be regulated more and more as it is found to benefit government more than the citizenry. Finally, "If it stops moving, subsidize it." It will end up being a cost to us all.

Steve

When the Everyday Hunter isn't hunting, he's thinking about hunting, talking about hunting, dreaming about hunting, writing about hunting, or wishing he were hunting.

No. The black market would explode without adequate safeguards. Any venison should be given to food banks and no profit made.
Controlled harvest sounds better with extended seasons and more tags, especially for antlerless deer.

The idea of venison being sold by certain select hunters to restaurants, etc. REEKS!

Look, the whole idea of bringing back sport hunting and the adoption of modern seasons was that deer and and other game were no longer going to be exploited commercially. We as sport hunters would pay to support the system through licenses and tags and we'd get the benefit. Now, somebody want to exploit the herd commercially again? Uh. . .no.

To make matters worse, they're only wanting certain select hunters to benefit. Ooops, there goes our herd, there goes our access, there goes the whole sport.

Look, I wish I could sell some venison here and there to friends. I wouldn't mind being able to take a couple to sell to the butcher or to a restaurant, but giving up that ability in order to ensure I've got something to hunt is a fair deal. No, they don't want to open up sale of venison that way. They want to sell off the right to hunt them to an elite group of master hunters. No. No way. No how.

[font="Microsoft Sans Serif"]This smells like a typical goberment, back room, money under the table deal. Master hunters indeed! Why can't any hunter be allowed to sell or barter. It would sure push some land owners over to giving access to their corn fields. I mean, if the alleged purpose of this is to thin the herds, I'm sure you could find 50,000 volunteers; no problem.[/font]

Teddy Roosevelt outlawed market hunting for a reason because game populations were to the point of exhaustion. You can already purchase venison that is farm raised right at some supermarkets and Cabelas for that matter. Market fishing for fresh water fish should go to. it is detrimantal to the populations at some point it would be overdone to the point of creating just the opposite of to many deer.

My House Is Protected By The Good Lord And Guns.
And You Might Meet Them Both If You Show Up Here Not Welcome Son.

Sounds to me like those proposing the idea stand to make a healthy profit from the proposition.

If this proposal ever came to fruition, it would be the end of free access to private land, one more way for the government to regulate the lives of hunters and the crash of the whitetail population. BAD, BAD, BAD!